Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Karlis

‘Strike may halt Iran's nuke program’

90 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Karlis
A military strike on Iranian military bases, airports, bridges, railroad stations and other key infrastructure could lead Iran to suspend its nuclear arms program, according to a paper that came out last week in a US Army publication, "Military Review", written by American-Israeli sociologist and George Washington University professor Amitai Etzioni.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities might not be effective, the Palmach veteran and Hebrew University alumnus writes, since, as opponents of such a strike argue, the location of key facilities may not be known, the facilities are well protected, and some are in heavily populated areas and bombing them would cause a great number of civilian casualties.

As a result, he calls for a “different military option.”

“The basic approach seeks not to degrade Iran’s nuclear capacities (the aim of bombing) but to compel the regime to change its behavior, by causing ever-higher levels of ‘pain,’” Etzioni writes.

... Such a strike would come after Iran fails to live up to its international obligations and open up its nuclear facilities to inspections. The next step, Etzioni recommends, would be to bomb non-nuclear military assets such as the headquarters and encampments of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, as well as air defense installations, radar sites, missile sites and navy vessels that could be used to stop the flow of oil to the West.

If this campaign fails, Etzioni recommends bombing dual-use assets such as bridges and railroad stations. If a further tightening of screws is needed, then the attacker could declare Iran a no-fly zone like part of Iraq was even before Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched in 2003.

“This kind of military action is akin to sanctions – causing ‘pain’ in order to change behavior, albeit by much more powerful means,” the sociologist writes.

-=-=-

Makes me wonder if there is intent to hit Iran, no matter what Iran does?

Karlis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

Possibly, though Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea sounds like too many fronts to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Makes me wonder if there is intent to hit Iran, no matter what Iran does?

That’s a given to anyone who is knowledgeable and objective on the subject.

This “Military Review” idea will not halt Iran’s nuclear programme and can only lead to all out war.

And what is this nonsense below all about?

“Such a strike would come after Iran fails to live up to its international obligations and open up its nuclear facilities to inspections.”

Iran are meeting obligations of the NPT and nuclear facilities are open to IAEA inspectors as required.

Oh well, Jerusalem Post/American-Israeli author… enough said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I'm not a fan of bombing anything except nuclear project targets. Even with a nuclear ultimatum, bombing anything else would be an out-and-out declaration of war on Iran.

Don't we have Spies? I thought that was the whole idea of the CIA. What are we paying them for, if not to find the secreat facilities of our "enemys"?

1) CIA finds facilities. 2) Ultimatum fails. 3) Offshore cruiser fires cruise missles to damage target. 4) Repeat as necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

I'm not a fan of bombing anything except nuclear project targets. Even with a nuclear ultimatum, bombing anything else would be an out-and-out declaration of war on Iran.

Don't we have Spies? I thought that was the whole idea of the CIA. What are we paying them for, if not to find the secreat facilities of our "enemys"?

1) CIA finds facilities. 2) Ultimatum fails. 3) Offshore cruiser fires cruise missles to damage target. 4) Repeat as necessary.

The CIA does not function properly, they create war not prevent war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco
according to a paper that came out last week in a US Army publication, "Military Review", written by American-Israeli sociologist and George Washington University professor Amitai Etzioni

This really says it all doesnt it!!angry.gif Israel has never signed the NPT, it has NEVER opened it's Nuclear facilities to international scrutiny. It IS a rogue state armed with Nuclear capability and should be taken to task for it.

Such double - standards from a terrorist nation... Makes me sick, but look, it has big friends so that makes everything OK. BS.!!!

Make Israel conform to International law (Iran IS a signatory , and its facilities are available to International Inspection) - do not be suckered into yet another marginally pious war against a nation without Nuclear waepons just because you are told to by a hypocritical regime in the USA that they THINK it might want them.

Why is anybody listening to Israel??? They have NO moral standing in this,

Edited by keithisco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

I'm sure the Israel apologizers will have some retort. Israel is special and "surrounded" and under-siege and it would give their enemies some advantage. The US government won't change it because every one has to declare fealty to AIPAC, Israel's lobbying arm in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Karlis

I'm sure the Israel apologizers will have some retort. Israel is ... "surrounded" and under-siege ... (snip)...

Yes Ninja, that would sum it up, imo.

Karlis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moon Monkey

Zzzz...use the search function...."Iran attack imminent" threads are as old as this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual

Unless you want an all-out war on Iran, nothing's going to end their nuclear program forever (only "delay" it) unless the Iranian government is replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

Unless you want an all-out war on Iran, nothing's going to end their nuclear program forever (only "delay" it) unless the Iranian government is replaced.

And conversely nothing will make Israel participate in international law about their nuclear program until the Israeli government is replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual

And conversely nothing will make Israel participate in international law about their nuclear program until the Israeli government is replaced.

I don't you know if you know this or not, but Israel's government has been changing every few years for quite a while now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

I don't you know if you know this or not, but Israel's government has been changing every few years for quite a while now.

i find it hilarious that you don't realise that so has iran's...

this whole post

Unless you want an all-out war on Iran, nothing's going to end their nuclear program forever (only "delay" it) unless the Iranian government is replaced

is completely misleading and inaccurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual
i find it hilarious that you don't realise that so has iran's...

Khomenei and Khamenei are the only leaders [the Islamic Republic of] Iran has ever had. The President has half the power Medvedev has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

Khomenei and Khamenei are the only leaders [the Islamic Republic of] Iran has ever had. The President has half the power Medvedev has.

you mentioned nothing of leaders, you did mention government however.

and you clearly underestimate how much power is under the control of an iranian president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual

you mentioned nothing of leaders, you did mention government however.

Government being the people who control Iran.

and you clearly underestimate how much power is under the control of an iranian president.

Oh I'm sure he gets to make some decisions on economic and social issues. But ultimately the Supreme Leader is Iran's... well, supreme leader.

As Wikipedia puts it:

More powerful than the President of Iran, the Leader appoints the heads of many powerful posts - the commanders of the armed forces, the director of the national radio and television network, the heads of the major religious foundations, the prayer leaders in city mosques, and the members of national security councils dealing with defence and foreign affairs. He also appoints the chief judge, the chief prosecutor, special tribunals and, with the help of the chief judge, the 12 jurists of the Guardian Council – the powerful body that decides both what bills may become law and who may run for president or parliament.[4]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

Oh that's a great plan Mr Etzionni. Have you got one where the rest of the world attacks Israel for developing nuclear weapons despite the fact they've never agreed to sign the NPT or ever been inspected by the IAEA? I agree, Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons, although there is no proof they do, BUT NEITHER SHOULD ISRAEL. Funny thing is they're seeking eternal cooperation from the only country in history that's used them in war and against a civilian population!! :o:cry::P:rofl:

Edited by BlackRedLittleDevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moon Monkey

I agree, Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons, although there is no proof they do, BUT NEITHER SHOULD ISRAEL.

and there is no proof they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

and there is no proof they do.

well israel have practically admitted it (on many occasions), not to mention jailed a whistleblower...

and another of the many differences is that iran is inspected by the IAEA, israel refuses such inspections... allow the inspectors in and we'll find all the proof we need.

wait... you're having a laugh, no? pretty sure that post was a dangling hook as you know fine well israel has an arsenal of nukes. hell, one of them is probably pointed at your home city of manchester.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

The CIA does not function properly, they create war not prevent war.

Yes, Iran would be quite a different place if they CIA had not gotten involved with them in the sixties and seventies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

and there is no proof they do.

Apart from the various memos that document Israel offering to sell South Africa Nuclear weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

Oh that's a great plan Mr Etzionni. Have you got one where the rest of the world attacks Israel for developing nuclear weapons despite the fact they've never agreed to sign the NPT or ever been inspected by the IAEA? I agree, Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons, although there is no proof they do, BUT NEITHER SHOULD ISRAEL. Funny thing is they're seeking eternal cooperation from the only country in history that's used them in war and against a civilian population!! :o:cry::P:rofl:

Why is it our place to decide who has nuclear weapons? In my mind, no one should have them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

Apart from the various memos that document Israel offering to sell South Africa Nuclear weapons.

excellent tiggs. i knew about the SA affair which has always been denied completely. those who mention it on these forums are usually belittled for believing this 'conspiracy theory'.

not any more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moon Monkey

excellent tiggs. i knew about the SA affair which has always been denied completely. those who mention it on these forums are usually belittled for believing this 'conspiracy theory'.

not any more!

A SA general, who felt that SA should make or acquire nuclear weapons, was present at a SA-Israel meeting during which Botha asks for 'the right payload' and then through a chain of 2+2=5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

A SA general, who felt that SA should make or acquire nuclear weapons, was present at a SA-Israel meeting during which Botha asks for 'the right payload' and then through a chain of 2+2=5.

yeah, ok, moonmonkey. your post is exactly as expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.